The Un-Electables? How Senator Sanders and ‘Candidate’ Obama Compare

0
1214

In late December, 2007, Hillary Clinton was a “shoe-in” for the Democratic presidential nomination against this political newcomer whose idealistic speeches promised “hope” and “change.”

She lost.

During the same time period that we are in now, just before the Democratic primaries began — a December 14-16, 2007, Gallup poll reported that Clinton continued to have a large lead over her competitors, with 45% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying they supported her for the nomination. Only 27% of Democrats supported now-President Obama and 15% supported John Edwards.

In comparison, current polls show support for Sanders has grown to 34% among registered voters who are Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. That’s a four-point boost for Sanders since November, and seven points higher than Obama was polling at this point in the election that he won against Clinton. Meanwhile, Clinton has currently dropped eight points, from 58% to 50%.

“She looks like she has a much stronger chance of getting the nomination and getting elected than Obama. You want to go with the winner, and if that’s a woman as opposed to someone black, then you want to go with them,” Sheryl McCarthy of Newsday and USA Today stated in 2007.

Clinton enjoys her current lead because she has 99% name recognition, a key reason why people believe the debates are rigged to deliberately have low viewers — since as Sanders’ name recognition rises, so do his poll numbers.

Despite being down in the polls, Obama was drawing massive crowds to his campaign rallies — shattering records by speaking to 24,000 people at a campaign stop in New York in 2007. That record that has since been broken by Senator Sanders.

At the end of September, Sanders broke another Obama record, hitting one million individual contributions to his campaign — candidate Obama in 2007 did not pass this threshold until February of 2008.

By December, Sanders doubled down and hit two million.

While this figure includes donors who have sent contributions more than once — the campaign has stated that they are rapidly also approaching one million unique contributors.

The average amount of each donation remains small and grassroots — under $30, yet the presidential hopeful managed to raise a whopping $1.1 million in a single day, and over $2.4 million in 72 hours, after announcing the push to cross the 2 million threshold.

The Vermont senator then raised another million dollars after the Democratic National Committee shut off his campaign’s access to their own data.

A new poll conducted by Quinnipiac University which was released last Tuesday has also found that in a general election match up against the Republican front runner Donald Trump, Sanders would take a 13 point lead — with 51% of the votes to the demagogue’s 38%. Interestingly, Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton would also beat Trump, but by a much smaller margin than Sanders. The former first lady won in the poll with 47% of votes to Trump’s 40%. Sanders’ upset would nearly double what Clinton is projected to be able to pull off.

So, to the pundits and establishment Democrats who insist that Sanders is unelectable — tell that to the Constitutional lawyer from Hawaii who has held down the Oval Office for the last eight years.

As long as people get out and vote, not even an absurd debate schedule designed to hide him away from voters can stop him.

“But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama,” Frank Rich wrote in a column for the New York Times in December 2007, titled, “Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama.”

They always say, history repeats itself.

Featured image via Twitter